Talk:Carpi
Canon Wait, shouldn't this article be RW under Category:Unused production material? It wasn't seen, right? The same basically goes for Bootes III, those don't fall under the Livingston clause. Kennelly (talk) 22:27, August 9, 2016 (UTC) :It doesn't really matter so much if they're seen or not; they're still canon, as both planets are referred to on screen. The "unused production material" category is just for stuff that was neither seen nor referenced on screen. -- Defiant (talk) 22:33, August 9, 2016 (UTC) ::I am confused. The planet was not seen and not mentioned in the episode? Tom (talk) 15:20, August 10, 2016 (UTC) In dialogue, Balok simply says "I will conduct you to a planet of the First Federation", but it wasn't seen. Kennelly (talk) 15:38, August 10, 2016 (UTC) :So, yes, it's mentioned (not sure the reason for the confusion). As I said, "both planets are referred to on screen." --Defiant (talk) 16:29, August 10, 2016 (UTC) ::The reason for confusion is simple to understand. It was not seen and not named in the episode, right? So the final draft script says, that the unnamed planet is "Carpi"? If it's not the final draft script the article should exist at Unnamed planets with a background note stating that an early draft of the script named this planet Carpi. Was it the final draft (and shooting) script? Tom (talk) 16:37, August 10, 2016 (UTC) :Why would it go on an unnamed page when it is has a name?! --Defiant (talk) 16:44, August 10, 2016 (UTC) ::That's exactly what we're trying to solve. So what about my questions? Tom (talk) 16:50, August 10, 2016 (UTC) :::It all hinges on where the name comes from. Was it an old, ultimately rejected first draft? Or the one that was used in the actual episode (whether or not the name was spoken/seen on a map, etc)? I understand your confusion; the waters are muddied further if an actor mispronounces the name when it is used. (See Talk:Erit, for instance.) --LauraCC (talk) 16:56, August 10, 2016 (UTC) :I really don't see that it matters which draft is used, as long as it's not a name that was superseded by another name later in development. Can you please point me in the direction of any of our policies and guidelines that say it does matter? Personally, I can't find anything like that. As for "Carpi", the name is in the final draft. However, if you look at the production timeline, you'll see that wasn't the shooting draft. The second revised final draft script (which was the last full draft to be submitted before shooting) doesn't include the name. As I said, though, I really don't see that it matters. Btw, I also know that if the name "Carpi" isn't permitted here, we should probably not permit Na'kuhl to be used either, as it's not in the final final draft scripts for the "Storm Front" two-parter. -- Defiant (talk) 17:07, August 10, 2016 (UTC) ::I only asked some questions here to cleanup my confusion. There is no need to react this way. The final script which was used during filming of the actual episode is the one which should be used for creating in-universe references. Why? Because in-universe info could be changed in the shooting script and a "name" could be replaced by a different one. That is just my understanding and I don't ask to delete or rename anything, I just asked for some answers to understand this better and that matters to me. Tom (talk) 17:25, August 10, 2016 (UTC) :No problem. I don't know why you said, "There is no need to react this way," however; I was just trying to answer your questions. Btw, I disagree with you about, "The final script which was used during filming of the actual episode is the one which should be used for creating in-universe references." I think that, when there's a name, it should be used; placing entries on unnamed pages even though names are available doesn't really make sense to me. --Defiant (talk) 17:32, August 10, 2016 (UTC) :...nor is that advised by our policies and guidelines, either. --Defiant (talk) 17:36, August 10, 2016 (UTC) ::So it is okay for you to use "names" from every incarnation of a script without knowing how it is named in a further revision for creating an in-universe article without a realworld pov? Tom (talk) 17:43, August 10, 2016 (UTC) :Absolutely, yeah. It's very, very rare that we do know, for sure, how each script ultimately turned out. And any names that were used in scripts but not used on screen are, by definition, early, developmental names. --Defiant (talk) 17:53, August 10, 2016 (UTC) :::I guess if you know or have a fairly good idea which thing the name is referring to (and in Balok's case, it's the only planet he mentions), then giving that thing that name isn't a stretch. :::That said, does it work better as a redirect? Only people who have more than a passing familiarity with old scripts (as you do) would ever think to search it by that name. Most would see the name in the episode reference list and say, "what's that? when was that ever in the episode?" (as I have done on more than one occasion). I realize that many of the terms we come up with for unnamed planets are terms which it might never occur to someone to search up (under that wording, that is - such as "So and so disembarking planet" and the like), but what else is there? :::As for the inevitable merge situations where something is named one thing in one script and another in another, and both articles wind up being created separately, well, like the poor, they will always be with us. (Mark 14:7 paraphrase) --LauraCC (talk) 18:07, August 10, 2016 (UTC) ::::I've always thought we used the final shooting scripts for these in-universe references and everything earlier was a valid bgnote. Allowing any version of anything I think would cause way too much confusion. If the info was removed by the final script, intentional or not, I think should be a bgnote. --Compvox (talk) 18:13, August 10, 2016 (UTC) :As I've tried to explain, that method doesn't actually make any sense. --Defiant (talk) 18:21, August 10, 2016 (UTC) ::::And if we don't have access to the final script, then use the closest dated one possible. Although I guess the benifit of a name is worth it. I'm just mainly concerned with the intention (or as close as we can find) of the production team at the time of shooting/editing. --Compvox (talk) 18:28, August 10, 2016 (UTC) :I feel this discussion has definitely gone off-topic now. If you wish to continue it, please do so elsewhere (i.e., somewhere more appropriate to the general issues than here, which is meant to be about only a single planet). --Defiant (talk) 18:32, August 10, 2016 (UTC) ::::Fair enough. -Compvox (talk) 20:43, August 10, 2016 (UTC) Planet's usage Question- is this the same planet about which Balok says: Just wanted to be sure before adding incorrect info. --LauraCC (talk) 18:34, August 10, 2016 (UTC) :Yeah, that's right. --Defiant (talk) 12:42, August 11, 2016 (UTC) Thanks. Have added the info. --LauraCC (talk) 19:24, August 11, 2016 (UTC) :Great. :) --Defiant (talk) 19:34, August 11, 2016 (UTC)